Abraham Lied

[consiglieri]

And you don't see this as at all supercillious?

[William Schryver]

And you don't see this as at all supercillious? (sic)

Not nearly as much as putting an italicized "sic" after someone's misspellings.

"In your hands or that of any other person, so much power would, no doubt, be dangerous."

[JDave]

William,

I'm not quite following your reasoning. Let me see if I have this straight. Abraham conveyed to Pharaoh that Sarah was his sister. Some problems ensued, and Pharaoh approaches him saying (Gen 12):

18 And Pharaoh called Abram, and said, What is this that thou hast done unto me? why didst thou not tell me that she was thy wife?

19 Why saidst thou, She is my sister? so that I might have taken her to me to wife

Pharaoh seems upset that he has been deceived, or at least that he feels he was deceived (led to believe that Sarah was not Abraham's wife). In the story with Abimelech, Abraham answers that he said what he said (or didn't say what he didn't say) because "Because I thought, Surely the fear of God is not in this place; and they will slay me for my wife

[William Schryver]

William,

I'm not quite following your reasoning. Let me see if I have this straight. Abraham conveyed to Pharaoh that Sarah was his sister. Some problems ensued, and Pharaoh approaches him saying (Gen 12):

18 And Pharaoh called Abram, and said, What is this that thou hast done unto me? why didst thou not tell me that she was thy wife?

19 Why saidst thou, She is my sister? so that I might have taken her to me to wife

Pharaoh seems upset that he has been deceived, or at least that he feels he was deceived (led to believe that Sarah was not Abraham's wife). In the story with Abimelech, Abraham answers that he said what he said (or didn't say what he didn't say) because "Because I thought, Surely the fear of God is not in this place; and they will slay me for my wife

[JDave]

The question of whether or not Abraham "lied" to Pharaoh or to Abimelech is a naively simplistic and needlessly reductionist diversion from what ought to have been the focus of the Gospel Doctrine lesson that was to have been given that day. Those who focus on that question not only manifest their doctrinal immaturity and essential unfamiliarity with the ways of God, but they (when operating from the relative position of authority as Gospel Doctrine instructor) also seek (whether consciously or otherwise) to normalize their distorted perception of God's ways in the eyes of their class.

I realize that the question was originally brought up in the context of the Gospel Doctrine lesson, but we are not in that class. I would prefer to leave consiglieri's class out of it. My question to you has nothing to do with what should or should not have been taught on Sunday, merely to understand your reasoning as to why God's command to Abraham made his deceit with Pharaoh into a "non-lie".

I know you are defending what should be dealt with in classes on Sunday, and I share those sentiments, but my interest in approaching you is separate. I normally am in agreement with you on many issues, and was honestly a bit confused.

I initially was (and still am) of the opinion that my option 2B was the most correct of the options I presented. What is wrong in one instance may be right in another. That is a very true principle and I sense no wrongdoing on Abraham's part according to the story presented in the scriptures.

You seem to be advocating something like 2A, and I am wondering if this is because you feel a lie is always wrong -- that there is no instance in which it is 'right'. Or am I completely misreading you?

[Calm]

As I said, I categorically reject that interpretation, which I regard as, frankly, almost microscopically narrow.

I too don't believe it was lying (I got sloppy above in my post). They told the truth, though not the whole truth. They did not in any way force the Pharaoh to have that false understanding. I don't see an obligation to tell people the full truth if they are not actively seeking for it or don't really want to know, but basically just doing it because it is expected of them. Nor do I think that people have a right to the truth just because they are curious, there are truths that people need to earn the right to know, to show they deserve to be trusted, that they will handle the truth given responsibly and not use it to hurt others or for inappropriate personal gain.

OTOH, Abraham and Sarah both had the foreknowledge that Pharaoh (or the princes acting on his behalf) would make a false connection with the limited truth that they gave him, that Sarah being Abraham's sister meant that she wasn't his wife. They knowingly created a situation where a false understanding was the result so I would call what they did a deception. They did not lie, but they hide the truth. (If people want to call that lying, I'm not going to argue with them save to present my own opinon.)

I don't see that as a moral problem myself as the Lord commanded them to do so in order to create a positive outcome, using as he often does people's weaknesses to help them grow.

In this case, Pharaoh or the princes working for him didn't care enough about Sarah to get any detailed information about her prior to laying their hands upon her. They didn't really care what the answer was because it would not have changed what they were planning on doing---taking Sarah, they only asked the one question to deal with the formalities (and not all of those even) and then basically kidnapped her as they took her without asking permission from Abraham or finding out if Sarah was willing to go with them (of course, this is not surprising behaviour from a group of people that will simply kill a husband to acquire the wife). The situation would never had arisen in the first place except for the extreme selfishness, arrogance and carelessness of human life that existed in the Pharaoh's court and that they attempted to rationalize their behaviour, to balance the books by sending great wealth after the fact to her family does not remove the stain of the kidnapping in the first place and indicates imo that they knew that what was done was inappropriate even by their standards. That Pharaoh later plays a victim is absurd. He had been merely given enough rope to hang himself. Thankfully for all concerned, he was open to listening to the Spirit after his heart was softened by the hardships that were visited upon him though he still saw himself as the one hurt by this and didn't accept responsibility for his own part in the play, at least not according to the limited details we have.

However, I'm sure not a few found themselves filled with doubts and unresolved questions as to why God would command the head of a dispensation to "lie" in order to (from the perspective that was nurtured) "save his own skin."

Which would be a sad perception imo as it has forgotten that not only was Abraham willing to die for his principles and had demonstrated the depth of that commitment earlier, the Lord had also demonstrated that he was willing to go the distance hmself to protect Abraham (and did so by sending an angel) and had essentially promised to continue to protect Abraham as his minister/prophet:

18 Behold, I will lead thee by my hand, and I will take thee, to put upon thee my name, even the Priesthood of thy father, and my power shall be over thee. 19 As it was with Noah so shall it be with thee; but through thy ministry my ^bname shall be known in the earth ^cforever, for I am thy God.

If both God and Abraham were willing to go through all of that previously, then there has to be imo another reason besides saving his life that Abraham was instructed to not tell Pharaoh or his men the whole truth.

I think not looking at the whole context of Abraham's life is what causes so many LDS to be troubled by what happens here and what happens to Isaac, Hagar and Ishmael and others. They neglect to notice that Abraham had full reason to trust the Lord, that he would fulfill his promises and protect Abraham's life and his family. (I don't think Abraham was perfect by any means, I do not admire the way he treated or rather ignored Hagar for the most part even if her treatment as Sarah's slave was culturally appropriate.) I don't feel a need to make excuses for him, I am willing to call a prophet an idiot, a liar or pretty much anything else if he deserves it; I will, however, give the same benefit of the doubt to a prophet as I will anyone else and examine what motivations may have been involved before making any significant judgment of wrongdoing by an individual.

[volgadon]

They did not in any way force the Pharaoh to have that false understanding.

Really? Nothing in Genesis 12:11-13 suggests that that was exactly what they did?

[volgadon]

Abraham and Sarai did not say they were siblings for any other reason than to give to Pharaoh the impression that they weren't husband and wife.

[William Schryver]

I realize that the question was originally brought up in the context of the Gospel Doctrine lesson, but we are not in that class. I would prefer to leave consiglieri's class out of it. My question to you has nothing to do with what should or should not have been taught on Sunday, merely to understand your reasoning as to why God's command to Abraham made his deceit with Pharaoh into a "non-lie".

I know you are defending what should be dealt with in classes on Sunday, and I share those sentiments, but my interest in approaching you is separate. I normally am in agreement with you on many issues, and was honestly a bit confused.

I initially was (and still am) of the opinion that my option 2B was the most correct of the options I presented. What is wrong in one instance may be right in another. That is a very true principle and I sense no wrongdoing on Abraham's part according to the story presented in the scriptures.

You seem to be advocating something like 2A, and I am wondering if this is because you feel a lie is always wrong -- that there is no instance in which it is 'right'. Or am I completely misreading you?

You are misreading me. I hold no such fundamentalistic views. I'll permit consigilieri that luxury.

Abraham, quite consciously, withheld information from both Pharaoh and Abimelech. In the context of my comments on this thread, "to lie" is a verb of action. Therefore, to deliberately withhold knowledge of the truth from someone is not tantamount to "lying." Alas, the English language is inexplicably sparse when it comes to alternative terminology. Perhaps I shall therefore coin a new verb: "to ignoranticize." Yeah, I like that. In fact, I frequently ignoranticize, as a matter of policy in my life. It keeps expectations low and options high.

Here's an example (based on a conversation from late Saturday afternoon):

(Phone rings)

Me: Yes?

Wife: What are you doing?

Me: Driving down the road.

Wife: What road?

Me: The asphalt one.

Wife: Where does it go?

Me: It depends on which turns I take.

Wife: What is the next turn you could take?

Me: Well, I could take one that leads me home.

Wife: So when will you be home?

Me: It depends on how soon I make the turn that leads me there.

Wife: I guess I'll see you then.

Me: Yep.

Wife: Love you.

Me: You, too.

(Hangs up phone)

Am I a liar?

[Calm]

Really? Nothing in Genesis 12:11-13 suggests that that was exactly what they did?

How so? The Pharaoh was perfectly free to ask for more details, he did not. If he was also familiar with sister-wife relationships (I don't know if such marriages among the royal family occurred during that time period), then there is no reason why he should automatically assume that "sister" means "not wife".

When I say "forced" I mean that there was no other option for him to think, not that they did not set up the situation in a way that they knew he would understand it that way because of his own choices based on his personal inclinations, etc. I can understand why you would perceive it as "forcing", I would call it "manipulation" and reserve "forcing" for more extreme measures.

[Calm]

Abraham and Sarai did not say they were siblings for any other reason than to give to Pharaoh the impression that they weren't husband and wife.

I agree with the condition that they did so because the Lord commanded them to give him that impression.

[volgadon]

Perhaps I shall therefore coin a new verb: "to ignoranticize." Yeah, I like that. In fact, I frequently ignoranticize,

That sounds a lot like romanticizing ignorance, perhaps a different phrase is in order, unless, of course, you meant it.

[LeSellers]

That sounds a lot like romanticizing ignorance, perhaps a different phrase is in order, unless, of course, you meant it.

Then how about "ignorantify" (to make ignorant), or "ignorantogenesis" (to initiate ignorance)?

Lehi

[William Schryver]

Then how about "ignorantify" (to make ignorant), or "ingorantogenesis" (to initiate ignorance)?

Lehi

ignorantify:

v. transitive

1. the deliberate withholding of specific details of one's whereabouts and/or agenda in order to permit one to wander aimlessly, contemplating the profundities of the universe, on a beautiful Saturday afternoon.

"She called to see when I would be back, but I ignorantified her and was able to 'take the long way home' with relative impunity."

[mapman]

Sorry if this was allready brought up: Is God a liar because he withheld the whole truth when he told Adam and Eve that they would die if they ate the forbidden fruit?

[JDave]

I don't think ANYONE has said that withholding the whole truth/story is always tantamount to lying. There must be the intent to deceive. I think there would be instances where withholding the whole truth actually aids understanding and is somewhat opposite of deceit.

If I understand correctly, some are arguing that Abraham did not lie at all, meaning he did not intend to deceive Pharaoh in any way. However, I don't think anyone has contended that lying is never OK. So while it might have been OK for Abraham to lie in this instance, he didn't.

[volgadon]

And when Mrs S reads this, can we expect a new term for 'WS will be spending his nights on the sofa'?

[LeSellers]

ignorantify:

v. transitive

1. the deliberate withholding of specific details of one's whereabouts and/or agenda in order to permit one to wander aimlessly, contemplating the profundities of the universe, on a beautiful Saturday afternoon.

"She called to see when I would be back, but I ignorantified her and was able to 'take the long way home' with relative impunity."

Wow, thanks.

I don't have access to the Schryver Unabridged except in my dreams.

Lehi

[Calm]

And when Mrs S reads this, can we expect a new term for 'WS will be spending his nights on the sofa'?

I vote for "couchcast".

[stYro]

I guess it's okay to deceive if technically what one says is not untrue.

That sure can come in handy... and now I don't feel so bad about that last temple recommend interview.

Then again, maybe Joseph Smith penned the part about Abraham being instructed by God to deceive Pharoah and Abimelech in order to set a scriptural precedent for prophets engaging in self-serving deception as long as they stopped short of outright lying.

"What a thing it is for a man to be accused of adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one." - Joseph Smith, telling the truth but not the whole truth.

[Calm]

I guess it's okay to deceive if technically what one says is not untrue.

That sure can come in handy... and now I don't feel so bad about that last temple recommend interview.

Then again, maybe Joseph Smith penned the part about Abraham being instructed by God to deceive Pharoah and Abimelech in order to set a scriptural precedent for prophets engaging in self-serving deception as long as they stopped short of outright lying.

"What a thing it is for a man to be accused of adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one." - Joseph Smith, telling the truth but not the whole truth.

That is certainly one possibility, but if you believe that, then why are you bothering with attending the temple in the first place?

[stYro]

That is certainly one possibility, but if you believe that, then why are you bothering with attending the temple in the first place?

I didn't actually say I was attending the temple, did I?

Also, one can believe that Joseph Smith was deceitful and still be a faithful, practicing Mormon; it's really not hard to rationalize deception for the sake of a "higher law" (like plural marriage, in the instance I cited above). Joseph Smith left us enough precedents.

[Calm]

I didn't actually say I was attending the temple, did I?

Fine, modify that to why bother getting a temple recommend.

As to JS being deceitful, there are levels of deceit and I think the level of deceit assumed by a belief that a prophet created scripture not because he was inspired, but so he could present a rationalization of his own behaviour and that the prophet then presented such rationalization as inspired revelation is highly problematic in someone who is truly "faithful" as in "having faith" and not just doing all those things expected to be manifested by someone who is full of faith.

[stYro]

Fine, modify that to why bother getting a temple recommend.

As to JS being deceitful, there are levels of deceit and I think the level of deceit assumed by a belief that a prophet created scripture not because he was inspired, but so he could present a rationalization of his own behaviour and that the prophet then presented such rationalization as inspired revelation is highly problematic in someone who is truly "faithful" as in "having faith" and not just doing all those things expected to be manifested by someone who is full of faith.

I think the issue of propets being intentionally and carefully deceitful is of far greater importance than whether or not stYro is, or was, "truly faithful".

[Deborah]

Sorry if this was allready brought up: Is God a liar because he withheld the whole truth when he told Adam and Eve that they would die if they ate the forbidden fruit?

He actually said "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Since we believe a day to the Lord is a thousand of our years they did die in the same day (Adam was 900 and some years.

But yes he didn't elaborate what was meant by day.